* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30144

Summary Calendar

__________________

ROBERT E. LOVE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden, 

 ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(93 CV 793)

______________________________________________

(August 17, 1995)

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert E. Love (Love), an inmate in the Louisiana State

Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, filed this section 1983 suit

against various prison officials on September 14, 1993, alleging

that the prison's administrative remedy procedures violated his
In his prayer for relief, Love sought compensatory and

punitive damages, attorneys' fees, transportation of his body to

his family in the event he dies in prison, traveling expenses for

his family to come visit him in prison, and an injunction requiring

Defendants to stop violating his constitutional rights.

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985).

Specifically, Messina stated that, although Love had initiated

a request for administrative review regarding the constitutionality

of the disciplinary rules and procedures, he did not appeal to the

2

constitutional rights, that he was issued a false disciplinary

report and harassed for unknown reasons, and that he was denied

procedural due process because a disciplinary board hearing was

improperly conducted. In his pro se complaint, Love sought both

injunctive and monetary relief.2 The district court referred the

case to a magistrate judge, who held a Spears3 hearing on October

21, 1993. After the hearing, the magistrate judge denied Love

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay a partial

filing fee of $15. On November 1, 1993, the magistrate judge

issued a stay order to determine (1) whether Love had exhausted

prison administrative procedures, and (2) if he had not, to give

him a ninety-day period in which to do so, and (3) to inform him

that failure to make a reasonable and good faith effort to exhaust

these administrative procedures would result in the dismissal of

his suit with prejudice. On March 15, 1994, the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections (LDPSC) filed a Notice

of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies and the affidavit of

Carlos Messina, the General Administrator of the LDPSC,

Administrative Remedy Procedure. In his affidavit, Messina averred

that Love had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.4
Third Step of the procedure. In addition, Messina stated that Love

had not appealed the disciplinary board's ruling regarding a

disciplinary violation that he received for aggravated

disobedience.

We note that Love also argues that he need not exhaust

administrative remedies because "prison officials ignore [sic] and

3

On March 21, 1994, the magistrate judge ordered Love to show

cause why his suit should not be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1997e(a)(1) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Love

responded that he need not exhaust administrative remedies because

the procedures have not been certified by the Attorney General or

a federal court as required under the Civil Rights of

Institutionalized Persons Act (the Act) and because the procedures

are not in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act.

In her April 14, 1994, report and recommendation, the

magistrate judge determined that Love had "not made a good faith

attempt to exhaust the administrative remedy procedure" and

therefore recommended that Love's suit be dismissed under section

1997e(a)(1). Love filed objections to the magistrate judge's

report. On January 9, 1995, the district court overruled Love's

objections and dismissed his suit for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under section 1997e(a)(1). Love appealed,

and this Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On appeal, Love does not contend that he exhausted his

administrative remedies; rather, he argues that he should not be

required to exhaust his administrative remedies because the prison

procedures do not meet federal minimum standards required by the

Act.5 Contrary to Love's contention, the Administrative Remedy
interfered with his attempts to pursue an Administrative Remedy."

This argument contradicts the magistrate judge's finding that he

failed to make a good faith attempt to exhaust his administrative

remedies. Because we uphold the magistrate judge's finding, we

reject this argument. 

4

Procedures promulgated by the LDPSC have been certified as meeting

section 1997e's minimal requirements. See Martin v. Catalanotto,

895 F.2d 1040, 1042 (5th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana approved

the procedures as meeting 1997e's minimal requirements).

Accordingly, we reject Love's argument that the administrative

remedies do not comply with the Act's requirements. Because Love

is seeking both monetary and injunctive relief, he is required to

make a good faith attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies

before filing suit in federal court. Arvie v. Stalder, 53 F.3d

702, 705 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that a district court has the

power under section 1997e(a)(1) to dismiss an inmate's section 1983

suit seeking both monetary and injunctive relief when the plaintiff

has failed to make a good faith attempt to exhaust his

administrative remedies). Based on our review of the record in

this case, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Love

failed to make a good faith attempt to exhaust his administrative

remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

AFFIRMED.